JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing part of impugned order dated 22.10.2009 whereby salary for suspension period (minus subsistence allowance) has been denied and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to make payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 30.05.2007 to 28.02.2009 and also to pay arrears of difference of salary on account of two increments for the period from 01.02.2007 to 29.02.2009 and also for making payment of difference of arrears of salary on account of revision of his pay for the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.05.2007. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 in Government recognized High School at Gumla district and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 28.02.2009. It has been averred that while working as In-charge Headmaster, he was put under suspension vide memo dated 30.05.2007 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Thereafter, memo of charge was served upon the petitioner vide memo dated 29.08.2007 on the allegation of misappropriation of government money and realization of excess amount of examination fee from the students. Pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 18.09.2007 denying the allegations levelled against him. However, during continuance of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 28.02.2009. Thereafter, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked w.e.f. 28.02.2009 and the departmental proceeding was converted into a proceeding under provision of Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules vide order dated 13.05.2009, which culminated into passing of impugned order of punishment dated 22.10.2009 whereby it was decided that the petitioner will get only suspension allowance during the period of suspension and 10% pension which was withheld earlier by the respondents-authorities was released. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the departmental proceeding, enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner, either before superannuation or after superannuation, so that he could put forth his defence, hence, in view of the case laws laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Md. Ramjan Khan as reported in 1991 SCC (L&S)612, the impugned punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law. Md. Ramjan Khan as reported in 1991 SCC (L&S)612, the impugned punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law. Furthermore, from bare perusal of enquiry report it appears that vague charges, as levelled against the petitioner, has not been proved. Referring to Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules, it has been submitted that it is not applicable in the case at hand, as neither there is any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or there is any proved grave misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that punishment of withholding full salary for suspension period (minus subsistence allowance) for the period from 7.6.2007 to 28.02.2009 is not sustainable in eye of law as the petitioner had already retired on 28.02.2009 and the impugned order was passed on 22.10.2009. It has been submitted that a government servant can remain suspended only while he was in service, the moment he superannuated the relationship of master and servant ceases. Hence, petitioner is entitled to get full salary for the period concerned and Rule 97 of the service Code would not apply in such a fact situation. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer was appointed, who on enquiry submitted its report vide letter dated 28.02.2008, in which some of the charges were found proved. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from services, hence, the department proceeding was rightly converted into proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, in which, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, impugned order of punishment has been passed, which never warrants interference by this Court. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that for financial irregularities of government money and for taking extra amount of Rs. 15/- from each students against examination fee, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. In the enquiry charge of embezzlement of government money was not proved, but, the charge of taking extra amount of Rs. 15/- from each students against examination fee was proved stating that though it was taken by the clerk but being the In-charge Headmaster, it was his duty to look out the same. In the enquiry charge of embezzlement of government money was not proved, but, the charge of taking extra amount of Rs. 15/- from each students against examination fee was proved stating that though it was taken by the clerk but being the In-charge Headmaster, it was his duty to look out the same. However, during currency of the departmental proceeding the petitioner retired and the proceeding was converted into proceeding under provision of Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. From bare perusal of Rule 43 (b) of the Rules, it appears that it can be initiated unless the delinquent is guilty of pecuniary loss to the government or the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner has not been held guilty of pecuniary loss to the government and the second charge which is stated to be proved does not come within the zone of “grave misconduct” as the same suggests only deviation of responsibility to some extent. 7. Furthermore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has not been supplied copy of enquiry report at any point of time has not been controvered by respondents, hence, on the doctrine of non-traverse, the same remains uncontroverted. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the part of impugned order dated 22.10.2009 whereby salary for suspension period (minus subsistence allowance) has been denied is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to make payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. w.e.f 30.05.2007 to 28.02.2009 and also to pay arrears of difference of salary on account of two increments for the period from 01.02.2007 to 29.02.2009 and also make payment of difference of arrears of salary on account of revision of his pay for the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.05.2007. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.